240 likes | 692 Views
Continuously Pushing the Limits of Innovation, Technology & Conventional Thinking. RCM Theory and Concepts Workshop Module 3- Implementation and Outcomes. Agenda. Implementation Sustainment Benefits Requirements for Success Pitfalls. Implementation Options. Scope of Analysis:
E N D
Continuously Pushing the Limits of Innovation, Technology & Conventional Thinking RCM Theory and Concepts Workshop Module 3- Implementation and Outcomes
Agenda • Implementation • Sustainment • Benefits • Requirements for Success • Pitfalls
Implementation Options Scope of Analysis: • Full Analysis • All “reasonable likely” failure modes • “Tailored” Analysis • Existing PM Tasks • Pilot or demonstration study • High cost/availability degrader failures • Hidden Failures • Combination of above
Implementation Options Scope of analysis: Which is best? • Dependent mainly on goals and available resources • Funding/personnel resources/management commitment • Objectives of analysis • Fix current “headaches” vs. maintenance optimization • “Age/Remaining planned Life” of analysis items • Potential risk vs. return • Criticality analysis (Risk Indices) may be used to further prioritize or limit the analysis • Some is usually better than none! MUST ensure potential safety/environmental compliance issues are not overlooked in less than complete analysis!
Implementation Options • Execution methods: Facilitated Group vs. Dedicated Analyst • Facilitated group approach • Analysis is performed during meetings of key personnel in presence of a facilitator • Maximizes buy-in from participants • Limited by amount of time key persons can attend meetings • Less emphasis on detailed/analytical solutions • Sustaining effort less likely to continue
Implementation Options • Execution methods: Facilitated Group vs. Dedicated Analyst • Dedicated analyst • Analysis is performed by dedicated RCM expert(s) using information gathered from subject matter experts and other sources • Still must include participation of key SMEs (operators/maintainers) for analysis to be effective • Less daily impact on non-RCM analyst participants • Participants don’t need extensive RCM training, just basic orientation • More conducive to outside analytical assistance (outsourcing) • Requires dedicated personnel
Implementation Options • Execution methods: Facilitated Group vs. Dedicated Analyst Which is best? Again depends on goals and resources of each organization
Sustainment • Large part of the benefit of RCM may be realized over time through a process of formal monitoring and continuous improvement… • Initial analysis may need update over time: • Incorrect assumptions on initial analysis • Hardware changes • Unexpected failures • Operating environment changes
Sustainment • The sustainment process must continually monitor and optimize the failure management strategy by: • Deleting unnecessary requirements or adjusting intervals • Identifying adverse failure trends • Addressing new Failure Modes • Pursuing opportunities for insertion of new maintenance procedures, techniques, design changes, and tools • Sustainment methods include: • Emergent issue resolution • Root cause analysis • Degrader analysis • Trend analysis • Fleet reviews
RCM Benefits • If performed properly, RCM will: • Maximize safety and environmental health • Depending on objective: • Reduce overall maintenance cost • Improve realized reliability/availability • Provide a documentation trail for maintenance program changes • Provide a vehicle for continuous improvement of the maintenance program and equipment performance
RCM Benefits Who is using RCM now? • Military – US, UK, Others • NASA – spacecraft, facilities • Commercial Airlines • Power Generation – Fossil, Nuclear • Oil – Production, refining, distribution • Manufacturing • Pulp & Paper • Mining • Facilities (buildings) • Pharmaceuticals • Steel • Data Centers • Many others…
RCM Benefits • Provide a basis for cost benefit analysis and identify needs for: • Capital investment (equipment replacement) • Technology insertion (such as condition monitoring systems) • Provide input into spares forecasting
Requirements for Success • A champion/internal leadership • Management commitment • Resources for execution AND IMPLEMENTATION • Planning • Communication • Access to experts and data • Get some “early wins”
Pitfalls • Not sustaining after initial analysis • Wrong person in charge • Starting too big • Not planning ahead for implementing results • Underestimating the effort • Plan and get resources for help
Case Study Description: E-6B Mercury
Case Studies • IRU Battery/Charger Units: • 3 IRU units each one with its own BCU (battery charger unit) are present per aircraft • The BCU provides backup power to the IRU in case of loss of 115 V aircraft power. • Each sealed BCU contains a 20-cell battery, a constant-current charger, heaters, controls, and sensors. • Current PM: scheduled removal for high time at 365 days for Depot routing. • Batteries are managed as a rotating pool of repairable items.
Case Studies Total Removals in Period: 673 Failures causing removals: 372 PM scheduled removals: 281 Non failure / PM removals: 20 Total Reported Failures in Period: 392 Percentage accounted on top 6 FM: 91.88% Item MTBF: 1106 F/H 55 % of items are being removed prior to schedule Is the scheduled PM relevant?
Case Studies • Weibull Analysis plot for Beta values (0.77 – 1.01) indicates a likely decreasing failure rate. • Probability of failure by high-time removal limit is 57.24% (+/- ~4% at 90% confidence level). • Probability of failure of a unit removed at 365 Days to fail if left in service for another 365 days is 48.5 % (+/- 6.3 % at 90% confidence level). • Anomalous removal times (>390 day limit) follow the Weibull model very well. • Mean battery life is 485 days (+/- 68 days at 90% confidence level). Failure model evaluation suggests current PM is inadequate to address both: failure prevention and / or cost optimization
Case Studies • RCM – FMECA Conclusions on IRU Battery Charger Units: • Failure is evident to operator due to automatic self diagnostic upon mission start (reason why so many failures are being caught before high time). • The three system IRU’s are double redundant. • IRU BCU’s are a 2nd level backup to provide power to the IRU (powerplant, BCU). • Associated PM: 336-day corrosion inspection & every 2 years (2400 F/H) battery and cabinet cleanup. • No PM is recommended.
Case Studies Quantifying the cost savings: A Monte Carlo simulation of 354 observations was carried out assuming PM was modified to a proposed 900-day interval and its costs were compared to the actual data. Estimated savings: 78% Increase in service time
Case Studies • Analysis concluded that observed failure distribution is not properly being addressed by current PM. • Life of the program savings of 78% increase in service time were realized via the implementation of sound statistical modeling tools and RCM/FMECA. • RCM/FMECA analysis concluded BCU failure to be of low criticality and suggested No PM. A 900 day removal interval was evaluated for cost comparison.